- Describe the relationship between early Natural Philosophy and what we now call Philosophy, and Science.
- What was the scientific revolution?
- Explain the "shut up and calculate" dictum.
For Further Discussion
- Shut up and calculate? Some scientists have suggested that it is not worth studying. Are they right? How would you respond? What kinds of factors should be considered in evaluating this claim?
- What makes something scientific? You may have your intuitions about what science is. But can you put your finger on exactly what it is that distinguishes science from non-science? Some particular examples of this question:
- Prediction. One might say that science is about making predictions. But is this always the case? Can you think of examples of sciences that do not involve prediciton?
- Experiment. Similarly for experiment. Is this what characterises all science? Can you think of any counterexamples?
- What else? Try to brainstorm some other properties that characterise many or most sciences. Which of them might be used to characterise what science is?
- Philosophy? Do any of the above characterise philosophy as well? Do any of these principles fail to characterise philosophy?
- What makes something un-scientific? What about theories that are not scientific? Rain-dancing and astrology are not scientific in the same way that meteorology and physics are. Can you put your finger on why? What makes something unscientific?
- Popper said that a field is unscientific if it cannot be falsified by empirical evidence. Is this an appropriate standard for characterising things as unscientific?
- When it was discovered in the 19th century that Saturn was not following the orbit predicted by Newton's theory of gravity, it turns out that Newton's theory was not considered falsified. Instead, it was proposed that another planet must exist just beyond the orbit of Saturn. This indeed turned out to be the case, and led to the discovery of Uranus. Why did scientists refuse to consider Newton's theory falsified? Was this a failure of scientific practice? Is it a failure of Popper's rule of falsifiability?